# raise()

Richard Godard (janus@cam.org)
Fri, 2 Aug 1996 15:55:33 PDT

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    At 13:37 -0800 8/2/96, Don Schwarz wrote:
    >I would prefer just adding an optional 4th argument to raise() that the
    >server uses for the traceback stack instead of creating one from the
    >callers stack and current location in the verb.  So in the above example,
    >the reraise line would be replaced with:
    >      raise(@error);
    >Of course this would probably open up a few security holes so it might have
    >to be wiz-only, I'm not sure.
    >                                                   --Dark_Owl

    Yes, I was thinking about that too (4th argument) but didn't proposed it
    because of the security issue (people building flase traceback...) Not that
    it would be such a security hole tho...

    reraise (reraise()?) could be used by anyone.

    I also wonder wich one is easier to implement:
    a) raise() with 4 args
    b) reraise() bf
    c) reraise statement...

    -- Richard

    P.S. reraise is not a cool name... if someone can come with something better...